pro sehttps://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com
Politics. Economics. Sports. Maybe Bourbon.Wed, 23 May 2018 21:47:31 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s0.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngpro sehttps://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com
So a Russian Autocrat Walks into an Eastern European Nation….https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/so-a-russian-autocrat-walks-into-an-eastern-european-nation/
https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/so-a-russian-autocrat-walks-into-an-eastern-european-nation/#respondThu, 06 Mar 2014 22:40:26 +0000http://mattcoldagelli.com/?p=769A Russian strongman, taking advantage of the geographic and political realities on his borders, makes a power play in blatant defiance of Western wishes. He uses the specter of lurking fascists, a dispute between rival governing factions that each claim legitimacy, and the need to protect ethnic Russians to act boldly and redraw the map in eastern Europe, all while knowing full well that the United States and Great Britain – as much as it galls them – are simply not capable of removing his forces from the ground they currently hold.

I’m speaking of course, of Joseph Stalin shifting the borders of Poland hundreds of miles to the west and installing a Communist government over a few months in 1945.

I bring this up to show that, with all apologies to the apocryphal Mark Twain, sometimes history goes beyond rhyming and does indeed repeat itself. And, with the exception of the fifteen years or so after 1991, Russian behavior in eastern Europe and the Caucasus has been playing on loop. This – as you might expect from a 70-year status quo – is not exactly news…unless you happen to be a member of the neoconservative hawkosphere. For these people, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the Crimea is a shocking event, one that demands answers and blame. And – spoiler alert! – the blame lies at the feet of Barack Obama.

The president keeps telling the world that he doesn’t see this as a Russian problem. The idea of returning to the Cold War — when we checked Soviet expansion and stood up for free peoples — is anathema to Obama. With massive Pentagon cuts, the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a prominent senator decrying efforts to brush back Russia (“tweak”) and evisceration of the Syrian “red line,” Putin has made an entirely rational calculation that he can destabilize Ukraine or, at the very least, exert Russian domination over Crimea, with very little if any consequence.

Ah yes, those idyllic days of the Cold War. I’m sure it’s news to Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, East Germans, Belorussians and yes, Ukrainians that “we checked Soviet expansion” for those forty-plus years! You could cruise the Danube and see nothing but “free people” for decades, that is until this Obama character showed up with his red lines and, uh, #Benghazi.

On Oct. 18, 1962, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko visited President Kennedy in the Oval Office and told him that the Soviet Union would never deploy offensive military capabilities in Cuba. This was a lie, as Kennedy already knew, and four days later he called Gromyko out on the lie in his famous “quarantine” speech, usefully embarrassing the Soviets and rallying U.S. public opinion at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Fifty-plus years later, Mr. Putin told Mr. Obama that Russia had intervened in Crimea because “the lives and health of Russian citizens and the many compatriots” were at imminent risk. That, too, was a transparent lie, as every report out of Crimea attests. The difference this time is an American president who registers no public complaint about being brazenly lied to by a Russian thug.

Were you wondering what it took to get the WSJ editorial page to wax nostalgic about President Kennedy’s mostly hamfisted handling of the Cold War? Now you know!

“To invade Crimea is a huge step and he would only have done it with a president who has shown from the very beginning that he’s living in a fantasy world,”

It’s true – an American president living in a fantasy world is absolutely a prerequisite for Russian rulers overpowering their neighbors. This means other fantasy world Presidents include: Truman (1945), Eisenhower (1956), Johnson (1968), Carter (1979), Clinton (1994) and George W. Bush (2008).

Look, I’m clearly not fan of the Obama administration generally or of its foreign policy specifically (somanyexamples!). But attempting to lay one of the most dependable geopolitical realities of the last century (i.e., Russia will bully its neighbors) at his feet undercuts your ability to take him to task for the the (many, many) things he actually deserves to be taken to task for.

Putin is a thug. Just as Stalin and Khrushchev were. But we’ve had a terrible hand to play in eastern Europe for 69 years running, and it doesn’t have anything to do with Barack Obama or John Kerry. Russia gonna Russia.

]]>https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/so-a-russian-autocrat-walks-into-an-eastern-european-nation/feed/0mcoldagelliA Bridge Too Farhttps://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/a-bridge-too-far/
https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/a-bridge-too-far/#respondThu, 09 Jan 2014 18:54:05 +0000http://mattcoldagelli.com/?p=762Here I was, thinking I would need to wait until there was a Republican POTUS (potentally a really long wait) ito bask in the would-be-funny-if-it-weren’t-so-egregious hypocrisy of the left, when little did I know that a Presidential hopeful can bring it out!

(By the way, isn’t there a non-zero chance that someone from New York/New Jersey would read that last sentence and respond with “Hey, I know having your wedding attacked by a drone sounds bad, but have you ever been in traffic on the George Washington Bridge?”)

So place your bets. Bet No. 1: Chris Christie is the slappy, snippy, sly dog he’s played for us these past few years, the kind of guy who runs a ship so tight and digs so deeply into a problem that something like Bridgegate could never happen on his watch without not only his knowledge, but his blessing. Bet No. 2: He’s a bumbling moron.

But Christie’s appeal that he simply was betrayed by his underlings raises more questions about his administration:

Why would several of Christie’s closest associates work to exact political revenge on someone who’d screwed Christie and not let the governor know? There would be no incentive for them to risk their jobs or worse, unless they could get credit with the boss.

If they really went rogue and screwed the motorists of Ft. Lee without the governor’s sanction, where the hell did he get these people?

How many more people like this does he surround himself with?

Tough questions, indeed. I’m assuming we’ll ask our chief executive similar questions about “where the hell he got” someone who perjured himself in front of Congress once we’ve solved the front-burner issue of tri-state traffic. Ezra Klein has similar concerns about the “culture” that exists in Trenton, and calls Christie “a bully”:

It’s entirely possible that Christie didn’t know very much about the bridge episode. It might just be the product of the culture he’s created, or permitted, to arise around him.

Hey, you know what? These guys are right. At the end of the day, being the person in charge means being responsible for the actions of those beneath and around you, whether or not you were directly involved. And leaders do set the tone for the culture of their teams and the workplaces they inhabit. I just wish they’d hold a President who stonewalls the media, wages an unprecedented war on whistleblowers and claims to learn what his administration is up to by watching cable news to the same standard. I mean, he’s either a power-grabbing, vengeful, dissent-squelching guy, or entirely incompetent, right?

We don’t really need to spend too much time talking about yesterday’s disaster of a loss to Michigan State. But as you might expect, for some reason, it prompted the knives to come out for Tim Beckman (seriously – what was the reason? MSU’s perceived putrid offense? The fact that it was Homecoming? I don’t know about you, but I expected to lose this game, and hard, so I’m not sure why this was the tipping point for some fans). A quick sampling of the sentiment from around the interwebs:

But the most important thing is we just need to get Beckman out of there. This is the worst coaching job I’ve ever seen. It’s one thing to have a bad season — good coaches sometimes have bad seasons. What Beckman is doing is stunning. He can’t even compete, can’t even keep it close, against anyone in the Big Ten.

Find someone who can throw big money — BIG MONEY — at a legit coach or else this repeating cycle will never end

I look at upcoming weeks to see if “feelers” have been inquired into Monken and the Illinois position

You’re probably confused about that last one. Maybe you’re thinking “Wait, Todd Monken? The coach of the currently 0-7 Southern Miss Golden Eagles? Who just lost to North Texas 55-14?” Yes, that guy. He was a favorite during the last Illinois coaching search because of his Illinois roots and the prospect that he could possibly bring then-Oklahoma State QB Wes Lunt with him. Now, even though Wes Lunt is already on the Illinois football team, people are resurfacing his name, because….internet, I guess.

At this point, surely you’re thinking “Matt, that’s just a random cross section of message board knee-jerking! That happens after every game!” and you’d be right. But then former Illini Ken Dilger threw out a (now deleted) “Fire Beckman” tweet. And then I look at the schedule and see what will likely be a humbling, nationally televised loss at Penn State next week. And then a probably shootout loss at Indiana, a demoralizing occurrence under any circumstances. And then Carlos Hyde has a legitimate shot at breaking the single game NCAA rushing record (I’ll save you the trouble – it’s 406 yards, by LaDainian Tomlinson). It’s easy to see how things could escalate in a fairly straight, unbroken line.

So even if this sentiment isn’t reaching critical mass right now, it probably will before Thanksgiving. And I get it. It’s a frustrating time to be an Illinois football fan. And like most instances of a coach on a hot seat, there will be people asking “Why wait?” or “What’s the risk in firing a guy after two years? It can’t get worse. What do we have to lose?” These people need to look about 430 miles to the west of Champaign.

Like Ron Zook, Mark Mangino walked into a pretty bad situation. The Illinois program Zook inherited had won the Big Ten four years earlier, but it had pretty much imploded by 2005. When Mangino took over at Kansas, they hadn’t had a winning season in 6 years. Both turned things around in relatively short order – two seasons after Mangino was hired, in 2003, the Jayhawks were bowling. Two seasons after Zook was hired, in 2007, the Illini went to the Rose Bowl. That same year, Mangino took Kansas to the Orange Bowl (yes, this happened! Kansas won a BCS game). Both then went off the rails shortly thereafter in seasons that saw complete collapses, with Mangino’s 2009 team losing their final seven games, and Zook’s 2011 team finishing 0-6 after a 6-0 start.

In 2009, Kansas hired Turner Gill to replace Mangino. In 2011, Illinois hired Tim Beckman. By any measure at all, Gill’s debut season was better than Beckman’s – KU beat a top 15 team (Georgia Tech) and beat a conference opponent (Colorado) after trailing 45-17 in the fourth quarter (!). The most notable event of Beckman’s 2012 campaign involved chewing tobacco.

In season two, Gill started 2-0, but then faceplanted with ten straight losses. Kansas had apparently seen enough, firing him following the season. I’m not a sadist or anything, so I didn’t watch a lot of Gill Era Kansas football, but perusing the 2011 results, there are some competitive losses (31-30 in OT to Baylor, 13-10 to Iowa State, 46-35 to Texas Tech, and 24-10 to Missouri). I remember that, statistically, this team was woeful, but it actually looks like it was more consistently competitive in conference play even though it was -1 in the Big 12 win column.

So if you’re following, this is where Illinois would be at the end of the season. Two years in, with some improvement being shown (regardless of how the rest of the 2013 Illinois campaign plays out, it’s already been an improvement over last year). When it found itself in this spot, Kansas, thinking “This can’t get any worse,” axed Gill and hired Charlie Weis. This was apparently based on the ironclad logic that what was preventing him from succeeding at Notre Dame must have been the cornucopia of unique, built-in advantages that program has. A true schematic artist needs a blank canvas to realize his vision, right?

How’s that working out? Well, there’s currently one program with a longer conference losing streak than Illinois – it’s Kansas. Now, the moral of this story isn’t Tim Beckman = Turner Gill. It’s that when Kansas canned Gill and went out looking for their third coach since 2009, they were forced to roll the dice with a retread, and from the looks of it, they lost that gamble. So Illini fans had better be damn certain that Beckman can’t succeed before they start thinking that a move is warranted after two years. And if the tangible improvements on offense and special teams (not to mention the aforementioned Wes Lunt) aren’t enough to give them pause, the potential to make the Illinois football job even less desirable should be.

]]>https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/firing-tim-beckman-would-be-a-pretty-bad-idea/feed/0mcoldagelliWhy Do We Single Out Chemical Weapons?https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/why-do-we-single-out-chemical-weapons/
https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/why-do-we-single-out-chemical-weapons/#respondWed, 11 Sep 2013 12:39:11 +0000http://mattcoldagelli.com/?p=752President Obama took to the airwaves last night to make his case for military action against Syria, and it pretty much boiled down to “chemical weapons.” I’m not oversimplifying – he used the phrase 15 times. And while I grant that chemical weapons and their effects are self-evidently awful, it’s not quite clear to me why they should function as our litmus test for when we spring into “global enforcer” mode. I think the default thinking is that – intentionally or unintentionally – chemical weapons have become synonymous with genocide, which is not close to correct.

There’s been a lot of callbacks to World War II as options around Syria are discussed, from comparing the Assad regime to the Third Reich to comparing a failure to act to the Munich Agreement. I suppose the comparison is an easy one (even though the tactics employed by the Nazis were less “chemical weapons” and more accurately “weaponized chemicals”). But it reinforces the false notion many have that, but for chemical assistance, there would have been no Holocaust.

Babi Yar, September 1941

Seventy-two years ago this month, in a ravine outside of Kiev called Babi Yar, Nazis herded the entire Jewish population out of the city, ordered them to strip naked, made them kneel on the edge of a ditch in groups of ten, and shot them. This went on for two days until over 33,700 men, women and children were dead or dying in a mass grave. A month later, Romanians in and around Odessa began a series of systematic murders that resulted in the deaths of 34,000 Jews in two days and 100,000 Jews over a period of just a few months. Similar acts were carried out all over occupied Poland, Belorussia, Ukraine and the Soviet Union. The systematized extermination that many think of when they hear the term “Holocaust” did not begin in earnest until well into 1942. By that point an estimated 1.5 million civilians had already been wiped out by bullets or by fire in various actions like what occurred at Babi Yar.

Over a span of about 100 days in 1994, Hutus in Rwanda massacred anywhere between 500,000 and 1 million Tutsis. Most victims were hacked to death by machete.

Joseph Stalin proved that genocide is possible without any weapons at all, as he utilized a terror famine campaign to starve an estimated 3.9 million Ukrainians and Cossacks to death in 1932 and 1933. Families kept children locked away out of fear that they would be eaten by neighbors.

The list could go on. The point is, chemical weapons are not an essential ingredient to crimes against humanity. In fact, their use since the end of World War I has been exceedingly rare – partly because human beings have no shortage of other means to achieve malevolent ends. In Obama’s remarks, he noted that over 100,000 people have been killed in Syria, and untold numbers more displaced. Why are the 1% of those deaths allegedly caused by sarin the sole impetus for action, especially if said action is not conducted with the aim of removing those responsible? Why such an arbitrary line, and why such a half measure (seriously – what does “degrade a regime” even mean?)? As discussed in a previous post on Syria, his vague allusions at deterrence of future villains ring pretty hollow, certainly in terms of national security and of international justice.

If he feels there’s a humanitarian case to be made to ramp up assistance to Syrian civilians and refugees, he should make it. If he feels there’s a case to be made to take active military steps to topple the Assad government, he should make that, as well. While I’m certain I would disagree with him on the latter point, it would at least make logical sense within the framework he used last night – that of a “crime against humanity.” I would be as steadfastly opposed as anyone to “boots on the ground,” but if this truly is as beyond the pale as the President claims, isn’t that exactly when we need to commit to stopping the crime, even if it means a more than a “targeted, narrow” action? It’s hard to see how one can have it both ways.

The one thing that seems absurd is to try to fit the square peg of “history and morality compel us to do what’s right” into the round hole of “what I think Americans will sign off on + what allows me to save face and do the bare minimum to act on the half-assurances I already made,” yet that’s where the President left us last night.

When it comes to Illinois football, the surprises are almost always bad. Like this. Or this. Or this. Even recent notable upsets, like winning at OSU in ’07, were cases of an already good team performing a little better than was thought possible or likely. I can’t remember anything like yesterday – where a team we thought might be terrible dumptrucked an opponent I expected to roll into Memorial Stadium and hang half a hundred.

And I suppose that’s the key – upsets can be fluky. There was nothing fluky about what Illinois did to Cincinnati yesterday. Over 500 yards of offense. No turnovers for the first time in 24 games. Converting 3rd and 13. Converting 3rd and 19. But beyond the numbers, there was the overriding feeling of the tables being turned – when we went play-action out of a full house backfield on 3rd and 2 and turned it into a 23-yard TD completion, I had a moment of “Those are the types of plays that get run on us, not by us, what is happening?” It was pretty great fantastically awesome.

What does it all mean? I dunno. Cincinnati looked like a seriously flawed team even before they lost Munchie Legaux. It’s possible that the only true takeaway from all of this is that Purdue is truly terrible. Washington next Saturday should make for a much stiffer, more polished test. But all of a sudden, that game looks like an opportunity to be seized – positive momentum heading into a game at Soldier Field against a ranked opponent? After the Huskies took it to Boise State in their opener, my goal for Chicago Homecoming was “Let’s not completely embarrass ourselves in front of the entire city.” Now? Hey, maybe we’ve got another good surprise in store.

If you….were excited to see tangible improvement in two areas that were total disasters last year (the offense in general and kick returns); are chalking up SIU’s re-entry into the game to a couple bonehead turnovers and shanked punts; think that our defensive struggles are just as much due to inexperience as to scheme; thought Josh Ferguson showed this offense will be a fantastic fit for him…..then continue on to the possibility of a 3 or 4 win season, tangible improvement and Tim Beckman job security.

If you….believe that the disastrous Reilly O’Toole sequence was indicative of this coaching staff’s poor grasp of game strategy; are alarmed that Donovonn Young was bottled up by an FCS defense; think that SIU throwing for nearly 350 yards is just a taste of what teams like Cincinnati are going to do to us; are in a stunned stupor that we somehow received another sideline interference penalty; feel like we might be the fourth-best college football team in the state of Illinois….then continue on to a 1 or 2 win season with minimal tangible improvement and begin thinking just how easy it would be to get Dino Babers to relocate from Charleston.

]]>https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/choose-your-own-adventure/feed/0mcoldagelliWould Syria Be the Single Most Aimless Use of US Military Force Ever?https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/would-syria-be-the-single-most-aimless-use-of-us-military-force-ever/
https://mattcoldagelli.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/would-syria-be-the-single-most-aimless-use-of-us-military-force-ever/#commentsSat, 31 Aug 2013 00:33:12 +0000http://mattcoldagelli.com/?p=741

Maybe. How would we measure such a thing? Presumably by weighing what the goal of said military action is, the likelihood of success of the action, the level of direct impact on the US or its interests at stake, and what the cost of not acting would theoretically be.

Here’s how a proposed action against Syria stacks up in those categories:

Goal: Um….TBD? We know what the goal is not, and it is not to topple the Assad regime. So, punish the government, or something?

Likelihood of success: Without having a goal, it’s hard to gauge success. And if the goal is just “punishment” how is that quantified? Further, since any potential attack has been blatantly telegraphed, the likelihood of even minimal tactical successes of any significance is virtually nil.

Direct impact on the US: None

Cost of not acting: President Obama loses face because he said chemical weapons would “change the equation” for him

Seriously, that is the cost. And you can make the argument that it is not nothing, because the day may come when an actual threat to the US/its interests arises and Obama’s actions here will impact how the parties involved judge potential American responses. But what is important to note is that the cost of not acting is not “innocent people will continue to be killed” because that will assuredly continue – and likely, at an accelerated pace – if the US becomes militarily involved in the manner that is being proposed. Not only is there the chance of collateral damage in the strikes themselves, but the elevation of the war via direct US involvement will likely intensify the conflict. Anyone arguing that doing this will save lives has it wrong, if not totally backwards. We’re left with “We need to do something. This is something. Therefore, we need to do this.” Here’s President Obama, using more words to say just that:

“it’s important for us to recognize that when over 1,000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99% of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal. … That is a danger to our national security.”

But this doesn’t make any sense given the options in play – Obama says he wants to make an example of Assad, and his actions then take great pains to not do that. I have to ask – what signal do you send when, in the same breath, you fall all over yourself to say “we’re not considering any open-ended commitment” and “we’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach”? Is the desired outcome that we will send a clear message to current and future dictators that, should they use certain weapons on their own people, they will be on the receiving end of some non-committal, “limited, narrow” justice that does not put their regime at risk? Consider national security secured, I guess!

Look, even if you think the war aims of efforts such as Iraq or Vietnam were the wrong ones, at least aims existed and were stated – i.e., toppling the government of Saddam Hussein, propping up the government of South Vietnam – and actions were taken to match those aims. Air campaigns against the Serbs in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999), had rather clearly defined objectives and, in the latter case, put an end to genocidal acts. Even President Clinton’s failed 1998 cruise missile strikes were in retaliation for attacks on US embassies and aimed at Al Qaeda specifically.

It’s even hard to find an analog to such a rudderless advance when running back further through the lowlights of the military history book. Sporadic incursions into Mexico in the midst of that civil war were conducted with intention of capturing Pancho Villa and other “bandits” or protecting American citizens in theoretical danger. The haphazard intrusion of American and Allied forces into the Russian Civil War in 1918 was an abject failure that was rife with mutinies and resulted in the bodies of US soldiers being left in the Soviet Union for more than a decade, but as World War I was still being fought in France and Belgium, it was at least arguable that helping bring about a Bolshevik defeat in Russia could re-ignite a two-front war against Germany.

All of these look like tightly focused, purposeful efforts when compared with the ball of nothing that is the rationale for action in Syria.

Obama denied that the move for reform was motivated by recent leaks to the press from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and said that the review and changes were in place before the leaks occurred and would have happened anyway.

“There’s no doubt that Mr. Snowden’s leaks triggered a much more rapid and passionate response than would have been the case if I had simply appointed this review board to go through and I had sat down with Congress,” he said. “It would have been less exciting, it would not have generated this much press. [But] I actually think it would have got to the same place and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security.”

Obama had called for a review of the programs in April, before the Guardian newspaper began publishing the first leaks from Snowden. But the review was a secretive closed-door process. Snowden’s leaks have forced the issues into the spotlight and ensured that the public has been able to voice its concerns and anger over the programs and pressure Congress to fully engage in ways they have failed to do until now.

In a bit of hollow “nuh-uh” one-upsmanship that would probably make an 11-year-old blush, the President claims we, like, totes would be having the same debate about surveillance we are now if he’d just been allowed to do things his way and there had been no leaks from Edward Snowden. Even though “his way” happens behind closed doors. Cool story, POTUS.

If you’re still unconvinced, just take a look at what “his way” looks like when it comes to oversight of the program:

Obama made promises that he would “work with Congress” to produce better oversight, but he treated the recent leaks about NSA spying as more of a PR problem than anything else. The leaks had been revealed “in the most sensationalized manner,” he stressed. But Obama maintained that the programs were not being abused. Notably, the president didn’t suggest he would reduce the amount of surveillance taking place in any way.

But the “high level group of outside experts” that Obama promised to convene is unlikely to change any hearts and minds, unless its composition changes. Today it was announced the “outside” committee would report to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence—one of the officials most scorned by reformers.

Amazing. You got that? The guy who went before Congress and said “No” when Sen. Ron Wyden asked if “any kind of data at all” was being collected on millions of Americans (for those scoring at home, that’s a felony!)…that’s the guy who will make sure everything’s on the up-and-up.

So I didn’t mean to take a month-plus hiatus, but between work busyness and the fact that every time I pulled the site up to write something I played the Game 6 video and promptly forgot my other thoughts….that’s what ended up happening.

What finally pushed me off the sidelines? The fact that I have seen the following live acts this summer:

Good god. I think I’ve got representation spanning from 1992-2002 there. This was quite unintentional – the first seven acts on that list were on the Ravinia slate this year, and that picture was taken after The Spin Doctors essentially fell into my lap at The Maine Lobster Festival (!!).

Either way, it’s been quite ridiculous and fun. I should also note that I only caught Smashmouth from the train platform, as Sugar Ray’s performance preceding them was so bad it (and rain) caused us to flee. Sugar Ray was recording a live album at Ravinia, allegedly. This is likely unnecessary guidance, but I would strongly urge you to not purchase it.

Other than those two dumpster fires, though, I was kind of surprised at how good the rest sounded. I was also surprised at how awful Gin Blossoms’ stage presence was (the lead singer yelled “Hands up!” repeatedly and exclusively, as if the only metric of whether or not a concert is indeed in front of a live audience is hands in the air).

Other items:
Was Vertical Horizon the most under-the-radar band of the ’90s? There were like three instances of “Ohhhhh, this was them?”

I’m so shaken by the relentless barrage of “Hands up!” that I’m considering stripping “Hey Jealousy” of it’s Song of the Decade title that my friend bestowed upon it in 2004. Taking new entries/suggestions/arguments.

As a country, we’ll have to answer for Smashmouth at some point.

If I asked you “From this lineup: Fastball, Vertical Horizon, Gin Blossoms, Sugar Ray and Smashmouth…which band’s roadie would creep out the crowd with uncomfortable dong jokes?” You would absolutely answer “Sugar Ray”, right? You’d be correct.